First, you might want to top up your view of the subject with the related area of "open innovation." You'll find there are specific companies, industries and technology areas where collaborating on innovations is either locally present or is the norm.
Somewhat related is the idea of a cluster - where a particular geography becomes home to a variety of companies in the same broad market space. There's plenty of writing in this area - not least because it's sometimes very hard to pin down what's going on and therefore much scope for competitive theories to be developed, tested and docuemnted. Formal collaborations may exist in clusters, highly specialised companies may emerge that depend on the total ecosystem, or porosity may see projects moving forward through people moving between companies - which is a kind of systemic collaboration (the cluster generates benefits that are distributed and sustained over time, but individual companies may never collaborate).
My own experience of formal joint ventures between large organisations has been mixed - and mainly negative. Almost by definition, where competences are different (hopefully 'complementary' - but different nonetheless) it's quite likely that management styles, attitudes to risk, adaptability and a host of other factors will also differ. That is likely to produce tensions between the JV and its parents, and within the JV itself.
More speculatively, it seems to me that business schools primarily position collaboration as an answer to a problem for one partner. I have everything but geographic reach - so I collaborate. I have customers and delivery but a weak product pipeline - so I collaborate. And, as soon as I can, I extract myself from or else buy out the partner. If the thinking is asymmetric, many potential collaborations may be prevented because each party wants to collaborate only from that 'upper partner' position.